Utrikesminister Tuomiojas tal vid riksdagens seminarium om Ryssland


Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja: The EU and Russia - upcoming challenges of globalisation

Riksdagshuset
Helsingfors, Finland
4 februari 2004





Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,

The European Union and Russia are tied together into a knot of positive interdependence. In many public statements our relation is often thus characterised as a "strategic partnership based on common values". This touches upon something essential: our interaction and increased cooperation cannot but benefit us both.

The key notion underlying the raison d'être of the European integration is the understanding that no single nation state is any longer able to cope with the multitude of transnational threats and challenges that we face. Only by working closely together with our neighbours, and the rest of the international community for that matter, can we succeed in finding durable and sustainable solutions.

The end of the cold war was greeted everywhere with great expectations. In many respects the expansion of democracy and freedom has made the world better and safer. But even if the risk of world war has receded, we are still far from living in an idyllic and peaceful world.

Our perception of the threats we are facing has changed. The likelihood of traditional war between nation states has diminished, but new threats to security have replaced it. These new threats include environmental degradation and crises, the consequences of failed states, ethic and religious conflicts, trafficing on human beings, drugs, organised cross-border crime, HIV/Aids and other new communicable diseases, refugeeism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism.

The world is seeking to cope with these threats in our new age of globalisation. Globalisation as such is a continuation of the well-known process of internationalisation, that is the growth of economic and political interdependence. What is new is the effect of new technologies, information and communication technology in particular, which has both quantitatively and qualitatively changed internationalisation so much that speaking of globalisation as a new phenomenon is well-founded.

Globalisation is, on the whole, both unavoidable and positive, as the deepening international division of labour helps to increase wealth and welfare everywhere in the world. The main challenge of globalisation is, that this increasing wealth is being distributed more unequally than before, both within countries and regions and between them.

The other challenge of globalisation is the inadequacy of national democratic structures to exercise democratic governance over globalisation.

When we talk about democracy, we should talk not only about civil rights, but also of democratic access to resources: education, technology, natural resources, land and water. If market forces are left uncontrolled the livelihoods of many are endangered. Increasing monetisation and transforming of natural resources into commodities is threatening the environment.

It is unfortunate if environmental issues are perceived as something that outsiders seek to impose on the EU-Russia agenda. Russia's environmental problems do worry its neighbours as well, but the most disasterous effects they have are a burden on Russia itself. One need only refer to the appalling health statistics and life-expectancy figures in Russia which are to a great extent caused by enivronmental hazards to undestand that tackling them has to be a very central Russian priority as well. Our willingness to adress them in cross-border cooperation coincides with the interests of all parties in our region.

We in the EU have a multitude of environmental challenges that we need to tackle together with our Russian partners. Nuclear safety, timely ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, maritime safety are the ones which first come to mind. These were all issues that were incorporated in to the historical statement adopted in St. Petersburg on 31 May of last year between the Russian Federation and the 25 current and future members of the EU. This was a major achievement. The fact that all these issues did not find their way into the statement of the Rome Summit was a failure. In the coming months we must devote all our energy into ensuring that the statement that will be adopted during the Irish Presidency will better reflect our common challenges.

The other historical decision adopted in St. Petersburg was the creation of four common spaces between Russia and EU. These spaces - justice and home affairs, common economic space, external security and education, science and research - are intended to provide the platform and the framework for our future work. We, for our part, are fully committed to bringing concrete substance to these spaces by preparing detailed action plans to steer the process.

The common spaces thus adopted cover our relations almost in entirety, with one notable exception: environmental protection. Obviously one could argue that environment is a cross-cutting theme which runs across all the spaces but in reality international politics is often less straightforward. This is the reason why Finland has been promoting the creation of an additional fifth common space to ensure that environment continues to remain high on our political agenda. I would say that this proposal has been rather well received by our other partners, including Russia.

One of the key fields of cooperation between the EU and Russia is the harmonisation of environmental legislation and norms. This is one of the Finnish priorities also for the future. Alongside with harmonisation we support addressing environmental management, capacity building and development of economic tools for environmental decision-making. Promoting environmental investments in order to diminish pollution from most harmful sources, naturally, also remains a priority.

Environmental policies are rooted in economic decision-making, and the private sector has an increasingly prominent role. The EU, being the main trading partner for Russia, should require from Russia high and more or less corresponding environmental standards in mutual cooperation. Integration of environmental and social concerns into economic activities are particularly relevant in energy, transport and forestry sectors. Also for Russia this should be a natural part of its commitment to economic integration with the EU.

International climate policies and the role of Russia in addressing human-induced climate change deserve special attention. They are also an excellent example for the discussion on globalisation. Firstly, impacts of climate change are felt worldwide. Secondly, it also requires a global solution. Thirdly, the issue has been addressed through the global decision making system, namely the United Nations.

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change entered into force 1994, and it has so far been ratified by 188 Parties. The Kyoto Protocol of the Convention is the first and most important step in the efforts to attain the objective of the Convention. 120 Parties have already ratified it and, as well known, its entry into force depends on Russia. President Putin has stated that before taking the decision on ratification, Russia is examining the pros and cons of ratification. This of course is what we, who have already ratified the Protocol, have also done.

Economic sustainability appears to be Russia's key concern. It has been suggested in Russia that the commitments of the Kyoto Protocol are not compatible with the national goal of doubling the GDP. In the case of Russia, however, there are good grounds for believing that a win-win situation is possible: Russia's current emissions are well below its Kyoto commitment because of the economic recession of the 1990s, and the current economic growth does not necessarily lead to a substantial increase.

The Kyoto Protocol reflects the principle that the industrialised countries are to take the first step. New steps are, however, necessary after 2012 if the climate change is to be mitigated. It is necessary to widen the basis and ensure the increased involvement of all major current and future emitters in the global efforts. The world is now getting prepared for a round of negotiations on "post-Kyoto" climate regime, and the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol is expected as a starting signal for initiating the official process. Even in this respect early ratification by Russia is crucial.

The enlargement of the EU will further highlight the importance of our relations with Russia. Russia will clearly benefit from its access to an enlarged market. The enlargement will also change the Union in many ways, most notably because from 1 May onwards we will have new immediate neighbours. What is sometimes forgotten is that Russia is not a "new" neighbour but and old friend, ally and a partner.

The European Union is in a process to further defining the parameters and overall vision of the new Wider Europe/European Neighbourghood policies. This policy will relate to all immediate neighbours of the Union, East and South. It is well understood that Russia, because of its size and role in global politics, is sui generis and that our relations with Russia must be predicated on slightly different aspects. We are, however, convinced that there are elements in the Wider Europe thinking which can well benefit also Russia.

One of these elements would be the envisaged new neighbourhood instrument which seeks primarily to address concrete and pragmatic problems which have arisen from attempts to combine internal and external aid mechanism on and around the external borders. This can clearly bring added value and new impetus to the cooperation over the eastern border.

The new instrument can only be adopted jointly with the new financial perspectives from 2007 onwards. In the meantime we must operate in the framework of so called neighbourhood programmes which seek to simplify the current project procedures to the extent possible within the current legal framework. These programmes are now well underway and their success will be a key determining factor for the content of the new instrument.

The belief that strong governments are in contradiction with the globalisation of the economy is erroneous. Only market control, more equal treatment of different groups and universal education are factors which can help countries and their citizens to get the good out of globalisation. Otherwise negative effects can surge in forms of environmental disasters, wars and many other ways. There is a need for global social and environmental policies. Challenging questions are how to democratise the global governance and how to redistribute global assets. International financial institutions need more transparency and democracy as well as recognition of the drawbacks and limitations of neoliberalism. The national level is definitely not enough for achieving a functioning control of the globalisation process, but it cannot function effectively without it either. Global solutions must be complemented with national efforts towards democracy and more equal distribution of income, otherwise they will be in vain.

One dimension of developing a new multilateral system of cooperation is the involvement of the civil society actors - both in the building process and in the functioning of the new multilateral system itself.

Transparency and accountability should be seen as guiding principles both for the governmental institutions and for the civil society actors. The continuous demands by the civil society for increased transparency in the decision-making of inter-governmental bodies as well as proper availability of information, are completely natural and understandable. There is still much to be done to improve the practices of the institutions in this regard.

Secondly, we should make a distinction between participation and decision-making. In governmental and inter-governmental bodies the owners and the decision-makers are, by definition, the governments. This does not exclude us from developing different very direct forms of participation also for the other stakeholders in international cooperation, civil society actors in particular. This could include things like the right to online information on ongoing negotiating processes, the right to table proposals and be heard at inter-governmental conferences. But the governments should remain the responsible and decision-making parties at the negotiating tables. Otherwise we delude the dividing line between the governmental and the non-governmental in a purely confusing manner. And otherwise we interfere with the autonomy and the integrity of the civil society, which anyway are guiding principles for the basic definition of what is called civil society.

I would like to conclude by saying that the relations of the EU and Russia are at a turning point. We in the Union must reflect where we are, how we got where we are and perhaps most importantly: how do we manage to move forward in a way which ensures that our intertwined interests are taken due note of. Perhaps one way forward would be for the Union to define the basic conceptual point of departure, the very sentence which forms the foundation for our relations. The notions of strategic partnership and common values are still important and will continue to remain so but in order to re-focus we need a new starting point to describe the objective of the EU. That statement could be that the fundamental purpose of the Union in its relations with Russia is to "seek to ensure the attainment of the fundamental interests of the European Union by ensuring the continuation of the non-confrontational character of Russia's policy vis-á-vis the EU, based on the notion of positive interdependence".
























































Venäjä
ulko- ja turvallisuuspolitiikka